|
Volume 5 - Number 44 | November 5, 2007
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
Sometimes a project will be ruled a success despite the contractor’s deviations from specifications and/or testing requirements. On a paving project, the contractor failed to follow pre-installation testing procedures on asphalt. The completed work was deemed acceptable, but because of the lapse in protocol, the public owner had to perform its own tests to ensure material compliance. As such, the owner was entitled to liquidated damages for the extra costs associated with testing and administration, plus a 50 percent price reduction on materials, as stated in the contract.
Contract specifications and an Order of Precedence clause are at the heart of the second case, which involves a contractor and the Army Corps of Engineers in a dispute about drawings and specifications.
Patterns of conduct that conflict with contract requirements can be dicey from a legal standpoint. Courts must often sort out which code will prevail. In this week’s third case, a court decides that actions speak louder than words.
Finally, we continue our series on the AACE International’s recently released Recommended Practice 29R-03—Forensic Schedule Analysis. This week, John Livengood summarizes the eight methods of forensic delay analysis and offers his expert opinion on each method.
|
|
OMISSION OF LABEL ON DRAWINGS DID NOT NEGATE SPECIFICATIONS
Ambiguity or omissions on drawings do not cancel out details on specifications if the specifications are clear, says the ASBCA. In this case, an argument using a contract’s Order of Precedence clause fails because there is no direct conflict between documents.
|
|
